Open Question Re: Reverse-Engineered Intelligence
Does the anthropic principle leave “What is consciousness?“ an open question? We’re going to take a linguistic turn. You’re saying language is an advance on the thing, and reduces the thing, and that everything reduces to language… which is a reducing advance? So you’re saying the deepest thing past which you cannot reduce/advance is language? And genuine language requires creative (not merely animal) communicators—so creation (free will) is included? Sounds irreductively complex. And you accept full responsibility for the consequences of manipulating that “technology” you reverse engineered, but still want to take intellectual credit/responsibility for “designing”? Maybe if you just call it “open“ you won’t have to take full responsibility?
Just checking.